/m/soccer

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Ferguson must have kept in contact with some of his players, but there were no rumors of him ever going into the locker before or after any matches to talk to the team. The Glazers aren't stupid - there was no way they could not hire Moyes after Ferguson picked him. Apparently he's still going to be consulted on a new manager, but his opinion is no longer considered sacrosanct. This is probably a good sign provided that they have other good "football people" around.

I did't mean to imply that SAF was actually physically around, as much as nothing about the coronation of Moyes was not also about SAF showing who was in charge. I could see a Name Manager wanting some other poor dumb bastard to take it in the neck next season before stepping in.

That 30 million (+ 100k in weekly wages) for Luke Shaw is crazy money, and I see why Chelsea has conceded. I want Shaw because he's good, young and a Chelsea fan by birth, but I wouldn't be happy with Chelsea paying striker money for a LB.

Happy with the draw yesterday, despite the defensive approach and loss of so many players. The Terry injury is going to hurt for the second leg, especially if Mourinho refuses to use Ivanovic as a CB. A midfield with Lampard/Ramires is not one that I want to see in a CL semi-final. At this point, I'd rather see us deny Liverpool the title but its going to be tough with such a diminished team. However, my only real criticism of Mourinho has been his rotation this year, as like JSosa I think Liverpool should probably be more worried about a fresh, second squad of Ba, Salah, Schurrle, Matic, etc.

I think Luke Shaw can take the Bale path to being a left winger if Man U want to go that direction. He reminds me a lot of Bale, actually, though it remains to be seen if he has Bale's desire to improve and grow his game.

In sort of interesting Spurs news, Thomas Tuchel is started to gain some traction on the rumor mill. That would be a bold move by Levy after AVB and Ramos not working out. Tuchel has already turned down Schalke and I wonder if he'd be interested in the challenge of moving to the PL. Lewis Holtby would be ecstatic, that's for sure.

There should be some pretty exciting second legs. I get what Chelsea was doing against Atletico, but Atletico seems to be clearly the better team right now. And because of that, I think there is a lot of risk to Chelsea's strategy because of away goals - though I don't know that means they should have done something else.

Madrid should have put the tie away yesterday. They had a bunch of great chances in the first half and could/should be up 3-0. I haven't seen Bayern so toothless this season (granted I don't get the Bundesliga on TV). Even when they let United stick around for a bit they found another gear and ran over them. A lot of criticism has been thrown at Pep, but they have the talent to go through. Although a fully fit Bale and Ronaldo together would be a lot more frightening on the counter to add on to what was already very good yesterday.

I'm know we are all sick of people complaining about the announcers but Wynalda has to go. He is godawful. Its one thing to speculate what formation Bayern was going to use when they put Javi Martinez in (because only Pep really knows), but two minutes after he was put in, it was blatantly obvious that he was not playing as a CB yet Wynalda kept wondering. Then 10 minutes later he just realizes that Lahm was no longer in the middle and was playing right back. Then as the game was winding down, both of them were acting like Bayern was desperate and about to go out of the tournament. Sure Bayern wanted a goal, but they didn't need one. I guess we're stuck with Gus Johnson - I'd imagine its in his contract to call the big matches, but the Fox guys better find someone else to go along with him. Wynalda isn't some novice to the game and he should know better.

Tottenham is supposedly thinking of hiring Moyes. I doubt many of their fans would be too enthused but it would make Tottenham's CL quest next season even more interesting because there would be the added intrigue of Moyes trying to fend off his two previous clubs for a spot. Could be fascinating.

A lot of Juve's build up play from the back 3+Pirlo kept me wondering if that was plan A. Not as ugly as away vs OM. It looks like the back 3+1 are left on their own and expected to play a relatively long ball to a midfielder or wing back impersonating a target man.

First time I've noticed lasers. Pirlo's corners in the 1st and Buffon in the 2nd.

Carlos Tevez is fun to watch.

What is the difference between counter attacking football and what the announcer was calling Benfica's direct play? I remember this being mentioned as the kind of football Tottenham were to play under AVB. Is it just a matter of looking to turn more possession into counter like dashes? AVB's 433

Goals under Villas-Boas are often scored from a sudden killer pass or quick attacks orchestrated in two or three touches.

Tottenham is supposedly thinking of hiring Moyes. I doubt many of their fans would be too enthused but it would make Tottenham's CL quest next season even more interesting because there would be the added intrigue of Moyes trying to fend off his two previous clubs for a spot. Could be fascinating.

I just can't see this happening. Or, rather, I think this would be a disaster so I am hoping it does NOT happen.

I only watched the highlights of the Benfica match so I cannot say for certain, but sometimes when the term "direct" is used it means looking to make an incisive ball for a player to run onto at speed rather than the classic use of "direct" or "route one" which is more what is thought of now as "hoofball". This often does tend to happen on the counter, but it is not required. Neville has criticized possession based teams as "possession without purpose". It is a debate that goes on at all levels of the sport. The proponents of possession based soccer tend to point toward win percentages in defense of that model, which I find to be suspect personally. It reminds me of the old "run the ball X number of times and you win X number of times" canard in football.

There are people in this thread that wildly differ in what they find to be aesthetic play. * Personally I do not care for possession based style of play, mainly because of the tika taka warriors one tends to find at the academy level. There was a recent e-mail one of the academy coaches sent out which rationalized an 8-0 loss at the U 10 level in 8 vs 8 because our team was "learning to play the right way" and the other team played "direct". I happened to watch the match in question. "Direct" does not mean "hoofball" which is what the coaches were trying to use as justification for the margin. The opposition coach was clearly a Klopp fan. His team pressed doggedly and looked for quick hitting, incisive passes. They were the less talented team, but they were better coached and had better skills. Wins and losses are not what is important at that age (indeed many people say you shouldn't even play matches at youth level), but the kids on the other team were being much better served in their overall development. It has gotten to the point that triangles are more important than scoring output in some arenas. Younger players should look for the pass yes, but there is also a time to run at defenders, etc.

The best managers understand this, and adjust accordingly. Early Brendan Rodgers would wax lyrical about possession based stats, but he's not an ideologue. He has said he studied Dortmund and Bayern's team (presumably from last season) and uses a more direct style that suits the players he has. Pep, I'm not sure what Pep is doing. He seems to have hardened in his views over time. I think some of the criticism Pep has received is valid. Sure we can marvel at full backs playing midfield, but given that the club he coaches was an all-conquering juggernaut, should some of the matches in this seasons CL have been as close as they have recently? I would suggest not, and I would also suggest that Pep's tactics have left him vulnerable to teams willing to play with discipline and at times to losses that could have been avoided if he was more flexible.

That isn't to say that he is a bad coach, he's not, he's an excellent one. Just one that can be caught out at times because he tends towards over complicating matches.

* This often applies to Spain. Personally I find watching paint dry more entertaining than watching Spain play. I'm not sure how it came to be that journos rhapsodize the style, because in practice it generally has the same outcome as a Fat Sam match. Take a gander at the number of 1 nils and nil nils they have been a part of in big tournaments. It is very effective, but that isn't the point the tika taka philes start off with generally. You can see this at it applies to Pep as well. The conversation often starts with awe at all the various permutations of his team, but the simple fact is they drew on the road against a terrible Manchest United team despite outpassing them in the hundreds. They were down in the second half of the second match and things did not change until he changed the formation. Pep does deserve criticism for that.

In other words, tiki taka style often leads to playing matches with small margins against teams that are somewhat talented but less talented than the tiki taka club (as opposed to pinging the ball around against the Levantes of the world and running up big margins). Which means the team is vulnerable to goals against the run of play in matches that from a pure talent disparity standpoint shouldn't be that close.

I watch a lot of U9 Boys soccer because TE Jr. plays it. He's on a mid-flight B team (Flight 7 or 8, I think, out of 14 or 15 overall flights, 6-7 teams per flight). There's a LOT of Route 1 football in these games, mainly because, well, Route 1 football works when your guys are already 10 and fast and the other team is mostly still 8 or young 9 and slower.

I'm not really sure what the answer is unless you perhaps want to split up age groups into half-years to mitigate against some teams fielding "old" U9 players while others have "young" U9 players. As an example, I would bet my car that most Flight 1 teams are comprised of U9-eligible players that are now already 10, whereas on my son's team (Flight 7) half the team is still 8 and only just now turning 9 this spring. It's a huge difference at this age (and likely at other ages too).

Of course, another thing that could be tried is to play all 8 v 8 games without goalkeepers. As a practical matter, most teams would set up 1 guy in the box and tell him to be "last defender/sweeper" but without a goalie you'd see less Route 1 tactics via the goalie punting the ball into the other box on a shortened field, and you'd encourage teams to keep possession (because losing possession, especially in your own half, would lead to goal attempts on essentially an empty net).

Of course some teams would adjust and play 2-3 guys constantly in the box, but that would be fine, because then the rest of the field would be opened up more--teams even in Flight 7 routinely play a defensive line INSIDE the other team's half, because if you have fast kids, they have more than enough time to recover and chase someone down before a goal attempt on the other end.

I do know that many youth leagues play 5 v 5 at younger ages without keepers; I'm not saying you have to play without them up to U11 or U12, but in U8, U9, and maybe U10 I think it might make sense--if the goal here is to teach kids to press (to win the ball) and to keep possession via sharp, crisp passing and spacing on the pitch.

I would bet my car that most Flight 1 teams are comprised of U9-eligible players that are now already 10, whereas on my son's team (Flight 7) half the team is still 8 and only just now turning 9 this spring. It's a huge difference at this age (and likely at other ages too).

Yeah, this has been true for years. I noticed it when my daughters played: one was b. July 30 and was always the youngest player (she didn't succeed in soccer); the other was b. Sept 20 and was among the oldest (she was very successful).* Not only does this skew the teams at the younger levels, but it discourages younger players going forward even if they may have more talent in the long run.

*The age difference was NOT the only difference in their relative success, but I'm sure it was one of them. In any case, I see the age difference affect lots of other players as well.

The very idea of youth soccer coaching seems like a new development here in the US, outside of certain hotbeds (New Jersey, California, immigrant communities).

In my day it seemed like every team played a 3-4-3 formation. Really it was 3-3-3, plus one other player (generally the fastest) who would either be an extra attacker or an extra defender. This was generally called the "sweeper". But some coaches called the extra defender a "stopper" and the extra attacker a "sweeper", and some coaches called the extra defender a "sweeper" and the extra attacker something else.

Sometimes the extra attacker would be a "striker", as distinguished from the normal 3 "forwards".

Crispix, where did you grow up (if you don't mind saying)? Not that it's particularly remarkable, but you describe precisely my youth soccer team's formation (suburban Philadelphia; 1980s). FWIW, we called midfielders "halfbacks."

Your hockey point is an interesting one, but my sense is that the system was popular mostly because it's simple and helps to avoid the "beehive" effect by keeping players in well-defined areas of the field. For example, as a right fullback, I was never encouraged to make overlapping runs forward, because the channel in front of me was already occupied by two more offensively-minded players. Also because I couldn't be trusted with the ball.

Not only does this skew the teams at the younger levels, but it discourages younger players going forward even if they may have more talent in the long run.

Yeah, this.

TE Jr. is young for U9 (early July birthday), and is not the fastest by a long shot (but neither is he a plodder). He's starting to get discouraged at being overrun by kids almost 1 year older and a head taller than him... What's frustrating to him is that when he gets even a small amount of time on the ball he can pick out a pass, cross into the box with each foot... His IQ is very good; he's just not able to find space to execute anything.

The reality is that his future likely lies as a defensive midfielder who helps build play from the back... but that position doesn't exist in U9 soccer (at least as its played in these parts). If a defender gets a free shot at a ball in his half, he lumps it forward or (if he's fast) he dribbles it himself 40 yards on a short field and takes a shot on goal. The idea of building from the back/through balls, etc. is just completely foreign to these kids.

And while there are coaching badges, etc. that are required to coach, most of these guys are somewhat ignorant of tactical approaches that could help... but of course getting 8 9-year-olds to follow tactics is like herding 10,000 sheep without assistance, so generally teams set up one of two ways: 3-3-1 or 3-2-2. Generally speaking, 3-2-2 always seems to work better than 3-3-1 simply because having only 1 guy up top can almost always be shut down if your defense is halfway competent. (Of course, sometimes teams will go 3-0-4 and just give up the midfield completely to lump it forward and run onto balls in numbers... but that's a totally different thing.)

I was in Pennsylvania as well. Probably 5 or 6 years younger than you. The system was basically the same from U-8 to U-16. Of course by U-16 the better kids were on the high school team instead.

I also remember "halfback" used exclusively instead of "midfielder", but the farther away I get from youth soccer, the odder that seems.

There should be a documentary about the rise of youth soccer in the 70s and 80s with coaches who learned what soccer was from a library book… and how that's been transitioning into a system informed by knowledge that professional soccer exists. For example, we probably shouldn't have been playing 11-v-11 at age 6.

TE Jr. sounds like exactly the kind of player who will get overlooked. My younger daughter had a similar skill set, but because she was always an older player rather than a younger one, she had more relative success.

Part of his development will be patience and lots of encouragement from you. It takes a while, but there does come a point where skill overcomes the size and age differences. The trick is to keep the kid focused and enjoying the game until that happens.

At least you have single birth year age groupings. AYSO, where my daughter started, has always used 2 year groups. That's a terrible system.

I'm confused by your lineups. Here in CA we play 7/side, so the lineups would typically be 2-2-2 or 3-2-1. Do you have an extra player?

I've really enjoyed the posts on various youth soccer teams; it is kind astounding how similar my own experiences are to what is being described.

re: Scott

I'm going to try to catch one of the LFC US tour matches. For a lot of people it isn't really their cup of tea, but personally I enjoy them.

re: Stopper sweeper

Yes, this was wide spread in the eighties. I had to laugh at you mentioning "halfback", at practice last night one of the dads was referring to his son wanting to play "halfback". The Dad grew up playing in the eighties.

re: Ages

I'm not sure what is to be done about this either. The age loading phenomena is real. For better or worse our academy does focus on skill development at the cost of artificially garnering wins based on age. But that has a cost as the kids tend to get their heads beat in. Most teams do play hoofball, my irritation stems from the fact that the one opposition team clearly wasn't playing hoofball. It was something else entirely and the coach plainly knew what he was doing and had studied people like Klopp. That does tend to be the exception though. I've seen two teams thus far that really stand out at the U 10 level this season, one did play a possession based tiki taka style and the other played Klopp ball. The rest, hoofball. The older groups are more sophisticated.

TE I wouldn't give up hope. If you stick with it, it does tend to get better. Skill gradually becomes more important. My oldest son has always been huge for his age and has a beneficial birth date. But as time goes by the more skilled kids have caught up with him. He's still a pretty vicious center back, but the flair players are becoming more and more prominent.

I've seen both sides of it, one of my sons has a "bad" birthdate and is small for his age, but is much more skilled than his older brothers were. It will show up more as time goes by if he can survive getting beat up at the present.

I also wouldn't get too upset about the passing and through ball stuff, my experiences at U 10 generally have been that U 10 kids can learn spacing and throughballs through rote training but the concept of space is not something they start to grasp in any real way until U 12 or even higher.

I also wouldn't get too upset about the passing and through ball stuff, my experiences at U 10 generally have been that U 10 kids can learn spacing and throughballs through rote training but the concept of space is not something they start to grasp in any real way until U 12 or even higher

.

Agreed. The very smartest kids (soccer smart, I mean) can pick it up earlier, but most of them won't get it till U12 or 13.

TE Jr. is young for U9 (early July birthday), and is not the fastest by a long shot (but neither is he a plodder). He's starting to get discouraged at being overrun by kids almost 1 year older and a head taller than him... What's frustrating to him is that when he gets even a small amount of time on the ball he can pick out a pass, cross into the box with each foot... His IQ is very good; he's just not able to find space to execute anything.

The reality is that his future likely lies as a defensive midfielder who helps build play from the back... but that position doesn't exist in U9 soccer (at least as its played in these parts).

I was the same way (June birthday, I'm a small [read: 5'7" even now] player with a high IQ). For me, because I loved the sport so much, the salvation was captaincy: I was the head of a lot of my youth teams, ran practices, etc. (also, I lived in Australia for a while, and there was a lot more passing play there, as far as I remember), and once you reach late Middle School/HS, you can find your niche (for me, I was moved inside, then to the flanks in Middle School, and then pushed back to fullback in HS and college). It's just a question of getting interested and involved, I think.

Don't post in this thread as much, but am currently catching up on last week's NWSL action. Watched all the games from the first weekend, want to get last weekend down before the next round of games.

My team (Halmstad BK), are celebrating 100 years this year, and as part of that they released a bunch of statistics, including a breakdown of the birth of their players by month, quarter and half-year. Of their 315 top-flight players 182 was born in the first half of the year, and the effect has been especially pronounced after 1960. I guess the problem in exploiting this missing talent is that the players are probably discouraged very early.

I guess the problem in exploiting this missing talent is that the players are probably discouraged very early.

I'd say not so much "discouraged" as "not encouraged". For the older players it's a virtuous cycle: they succeed early, so they get praised a lot and get offered more training, which naturally improves their play. For younger players (other than the truly exceptional ones), it's a case of fighting against the stream.

Parents in (American) football-mad states have been holding their kids back for some time now. Its caught on for other sports. I think if you want your child to go down that route then its worth considering. If a kid is really too good (or big) for his age group you can always move him up a level.

It's worth noting that the age issue extends into all sorts of other areas. My mom spent 20 years working in a kindergarten program for kids that were behind their cohort in a few developmental measures. 80% of the time a kid's "developmental problems" were there just that his or her birthday came close to the age cutoff, and when you're 5 or 6 that means you might be ~15% younger than your supposed peers. (For comparison, that's the difference between a 21-year-old and someone a couple of months short of her 18th birthday.) The effect can linger for a lot of years after this, and is a real problem in elementary and even middle school education.

In soccer terms, young-for-their-age players might have a whole suite of difficulties to deal with, a lot of which won't be visible to a coach.

Thank you for your reply J. Sosa. Anglophone commentary in continental matches makes me wonder if their pre game notes weren't influenced by a recently loaded game of Football Manager. If nothing else the lexicon used is immediately familiar.

Benfica's early attacks looked precise, moving quickly to wherever Juventus afforded them space. (If anyone has a better understanding/recollection of the game, please correct me. I could only begin to grasp it when it was in front of me.) It wasn't always a pass, a midfielder often broke free with the ball at his feet. Very nice to watch, though Pirlo being caught out and unable to even shadow the runner made me feel sad.

Now I have the second leg of Barcelona/Atletico in my head. Courtois' kicks to Garcia(?) were, I assume, good old hoofball, but the choices made at different stages were interesting. While playing their counters on the ground, Atletico finished their moves with a high ball into the box. If one defends with 11(?) behind the ball a long clearance seems silly, but once you have a tall man in the box you'd be negligent not to target Barcelona's shorter defenders.

What size of pitch did you(and your kids) play on? As late as 13yo we played ~7v7 side to side on a ~1/4 section of a regular pitch. Rather narrow with 3 other games going at the same time. This did allow for one's younger brother to successfully close down a future international. ~3yr age range, but most of the bigger kids played basketball instead.

Thank you for all the helpful advice about TE Jr.'s youth soccer pursuits. They do play 8v8 here in NJ for U8-U10 and at least for his particular league they will be expanding 8v8 to include U11 as well, which seems odd to me, since most clubs stop their teams at U13 owing to players leaking out to middle school and HS teams, and this give those players only 2 years of 11v11 on normal-sized fields which feels like a mistake. (I'm friendly with a U11 coach this year who is doing 11v11 and says it's working fine and didn't understand why they were switching back... Although it is easier for some towns to field 2 8v8 roster teams in an age group than 2 11v11 roster teams, so that might have something to do with it.)

The 8v8 pitch can be between 70-80 yards long and 40-55 yards wide, and boy you get some variance across different towns; you'd be amazed how much quicker kids will get wiped out on a larger field, especially in U8/U9. I think our town's fields tend to be smaller because of field space available, but it also wouldn't surprise me to find out they lay them out smaller to help our teams pursue a hoof-it style of play.

Parents in (American) football-mad states have been holding their kids back for some time now. Its caught on for other sports.

It's not just sports. People have started (maybe around 10-20 years ago) holding their kids back a year for academic reasons as well. It's called redshirting, as one might expect, and a lot of rich people have been doing it. It's bizarre to me but I guess teachers (like coaches) generally don't care too much about a kid's age, they just care about what the kid can do. They praise the most competent kids even if the only reason the kid is more able is because s/he's a year older than everybody else.

Yea I know more parents are holding back their kids for non-athletic reasons, which is a bit crazy. I was a December baby (so old for my grade) and got moved up (and became young for my grade) in kindergarten. Academically I ended up fine. I was never going to be an athlete but I'd imagine I'd be a bit better at sports if stayed in the grade I was supposed to. I wonder now in this day and age that moving up would even be an option now.

1. Fulham deserve all they negatively get now.
2. I'm seeing MUFC 6 - Norwich City 0 (ugly and often)
3. +1 on the 'Pool staying up...this was the best match I've seen this morning. Wigan look to be staggering about at this point.
4. I'm still pissed that Atletico has to go to Valencia tomorrow morning, then fly to London for Wednesday's game. The system is designed for a. teams with unlimited funds/invisible money; b. teams to just willingly go broke; c. teams who will never anything like the Forest doubles of old, ever, ever again.

United strategy of having three players aimlessly mill about within 10 yards of each other at the edge of the area while two "wingers" uselessly exist at the edges results in a goal because Leroy Fer has slow reflexes and Whittaker tries to yank Welbeck's arm off. An ugly first half all around, but MUFC couldn't score 6 without RVP at this point if they played until Tuesday.

The disconnect between Spurs' results under Sherwood and the quality of their play is just incredible. They've been no better than a Stoke or West Brom -- more attacking firepower, but worse defense to make up for it -- under his watch. And that's not just by the numbers, which have Spurs conceding more shots from the danger zone and more expected goals than they've produced. It's also what I'm seeing every week, a team where no one has any idea exactly where he's supposed to be, or where his teammates are going to be. Christian Eriksen and Emmanuel Adebayor are skilled and intelligent enough that Spurs still have a good attack despite the complete lack of any coaching happening, but the defense is a joke. Somehow, the opposition just keeps missing big chances (two more today, including a free header from the center of the six-yard box), and Spurs keep getting results. So glad there's still no chance Sherwood stays on.

Spivey, I haven't understood Fulham's transfer policy for awhile. They kept bringing in players like Parker, Taarabt, Bent, Berbatov, etc. I'm not sure what they were trying to do, like you say.

I agree Mefisto. Not to keep harping on Rodgers, he and Giggs are the same age but Rodgers has been involved in coaching for around 20 years, which is remarkable. Giggs needs to pay his dues, but I do wonder if there will be pressure to give him the job. I do think it would be a mistake, I thought it was a mistake to make him the interim manager for that reason.

The Sherwood madness is amusing as I just know he's going to be Newcastle's manager next season. It has to happen. The thing is, if he does go to Newcastle, and Newcastle being Newcastle, I fully expect them to make a run up the table.

It's weird that fans think their favorite players would somehow be good managers with no experience. I think some of them will be happy to jump on a Giggs bandwagon, especially if the alternative is some furriner like Van Gaal. Giggs might be a good manager someday, but he needs to demonstrate that at some level short of United first. I imagine Giggs himself knows this.

I don't think having an inexperienced coach is that big of a deal. Giggs seems to be respected in the locker room, which is probably the most important during matches. Any deficiencies in tactics and training can be covered by an experienced number two or other 1st team coach. However, Giggs has been exposed to only one way of coaching - "the Fregie way." Sure Ferguson changed here and there, but he liked his wingers and he liked two deep central midfielders.

The biggest issue is that if you're not going to trust Moyes with 100M or 150M pounds there is no way you can trust Giggs with that kind of money. He's also too close to members of the squad. Can he say no to giving Rio an extension? Sure Van Gaal is really close with Van Persie but that's still coach/player relationship.

Portland Thorns vs FCKC has been a really entertaining, high-pace match so far. Holiday is fairly rampant on one end, but on the other, every time Niemiec gets forward, Portland look threatening, especially since McDonald keeps winning everything in the air. Portland up 1-0 at the half on a penalty (which Allie Long exaggerated, but it was definitely a foul). Both goalies on form, though, so it could have easily been the other way or much more in Portland's corner.

Cardiff are done. Down 2-0 and a man at the half. Put them in a body bag. Sunderland look like they're going to pull off the great escape, they'll be on 32 points with a game in hand over the bottom three. I don't see Norwich staying up, so it all comes down to whether Fulham or Sunderland can make it.

Sometimes I hate my pessimistic nature being correct. That nature tended to think the Liverpool are 80 percent plus for the title or whatever the bookies had it as was utter bollocks with Henderson and Sturridge out. That was a classic Mourinho smash and grab. Gerrard on the slip and Torres on a breakway to Willian to boot.

That was Buckneresque. Maybe Everton does something against City but I'm not convinced the Palace match is going to be anything other than a draw for Liverpool.

edit to add: I could tell it was going to go badly from the start. Gerrard reverted to type and was back to playing out of control, something he hasn't done for a long time.

Gladbach completes the first third in a tough triple, beating Schalke away. Mainz at home and Wolfsburg away to close the season. CL is probably not gonna happen, but today's win makes Europa look much more possible.

Great team display by Chelsea that is obviously going unappreciated in most parts. Gerrard gifted us another one, but the defense was superb and the counter-attacking could have produced a few more, such as the blatant hand ball by Flanagan. I personally think that not enough blame is going Rodgers way. He removed Lucas too early for Sturridge and you could easily see that Liverpool's shape was all wrong after that. And Aspas is one of the more useless players that I've seen in the Prem, so I'm not sure what the purpose of putting him in was.

We still aren't winning the league, but unlike the rest of you, I'll be content with my new overlords City.

Rodgers is embarrassing himself complaining about Chelsea parking the bus. You maybe get to do that when you draw, though I don't particularly like it then, either. But unless we're talking about Pulis-era Stoke rugby tactics, whining about the manner in which your team just got beat is pretty weak.

Rodgers is not alone in couching parking the bus in terms of morality. It is nothing of the sort, of course, but even Mourinho did that complaining about West Ham. Its an easy thing to focus blame on. "Well golly gee, we were playing the right way but these barbarians on the other side of the pitch sullied the game and are a blight upon sportsmanship."

Juan, Rodgers has no bench. He has been agitating since the summer for an attacking player he can rotate in. They missed out on a few in the summer and didn't get Konoplyanka. Liverpool aren't Liverpool!!! without Henderson and a fit Sturridge. Mourinho can send out a B team that would qualify for Europe, Rodgers doesn't have that option. What's he going to do? He's down a goal. Leave Lucas in who doesn't create anything or go for broke with what got him where he was? I don't see where he had any options. Should he have left Flanagan on in favor of Aspas? Who's he going to bring in? Agger at center forward? Kolo and lump it up the pitch? He doesn't have the luxury of fielding a platoon of internationals off the bench.

Rodgers isn't stupid, he knows what the stats look like when Lucas and Gerrard share the pitch post Lucas injury. Take a look at Henderson's game log since Southampton away last year. His loss was always going to be a crushing blow.

I don't understand how someone can think taking Lucas off was a bad decision, he's clearly their worst starter of the 11 they sent out today, and there's a (good) reason he never plays when everyone is fit.

Mourinho has a massive ego and plays miserable football. But I do have to give him credit on some of the moves he's made this year - bringing in Shurrle, Willian, and Salah as winger/attacking mids has been great. They all can and do run box to box as well as press, which is crucial for Mourinho's style, and really crucial for any world class team IMO. Bringing back Matic was also smart, and Kalas looks very ready to contribute - he had an impressive game as a centerback.

Of course, he only goes to jobs where he gets oodles of money to spend, which is good work if you can get it. But he spent pretty well for Chelsea this year, and none of those guys individually broke the bank.

I'm usually the first to criticize Chelsea, but I thought Mourinho's tactics were brilliant today (leaving aside the time wasting). Yes, he got a bit lucky, but that was a superb defensive effort.

I credit the players more than the tactics for that, personally. It worked out, because they have an incredible defensive team - and of course he's helped build that and understand that, so that plays into tactics some. So I certainly understand what Mourinho was doing. But when you're not looking for a goal, you have to be extremely lucky to score. And they were today, but I don't think that's a long-term winning strategy.

All of which is to say, this team's attacking prowess is pretty shitty for a world class level team when Hazard isn't on the field.

It's really hard to break down teams that are so committed to defending like that. You can say Liverpool were bereft of ideas, but far better sides than Liverpool have struggled to break down teams who sit with eight (+) behind the ball and don't even break on seemingly obvious counter-attack situations. There's just no space to make anything happen. Liverpool faced a similar situation about a month ago against Sunderland. In that game they were very fortunate to get a free kick in a good spot late in the first half, which Gerrard subsequently buried. If you don't get that stroke of luck or that golazo from 18+ yards out, it becomes increasingly difficult.

There was a point in the second half where Arlo White commented about Mourinho gesticulating for his players to stay near the midfield despite having the ball in a prime countering position. I had to laugh, as it's exactly what Sosa pointed out midweek against Athletico.

But kudos to Chelsea. In two games against Liverpool this season, they've grabbed one goal leads and have defended it ruthlessly.

On Rodgers' substitutions, I'll echo Spivey's and Sosa's sentiments. Neither Sturridge nor Aspas were effective, but I don't know how you can criticize Rodgers for that.